Flag raising (or not) for Jesse Helms: This guy is my hero o' the day.

[Colleen]

I heard this story http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92426965 earlier and as a fellow "principles person", I am so applauding this guy. In a nutshell, he didn't acquiesce to the directive to lower the flag in honor of Jesse Helms. Granted, losing his job in the process was not a real issue for him, given how close he was to retirement; he acknowledges that. In fact, as you can hear in the interview, he's very low-key, not out on a mission, not a hell-raiser. Just a regular guy living by his principles. Of course, one can say the same for Jesse Helms. To that end, perhaps Helms would appreciate the sincerity of this man.:)

[Colleen]

I'm interested in what others think of this story. Do you admire the man for sticking to his principles (whether or not you happen to share those principles)? Do you think he should have just followed the instructive? Anyone out there?:)

 

I heard this story http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92426965 earlier and as a fellow "principles person", I am so applauding this guy. In a nutshell, he didn't acquiesce to the directive to lower the flag in honor of Jesse Helms. Granted, losing his job in the process was not a real issue for him, given how close he was to retirement; he acknowledges that. In fact, as you can hear in the interview, he's very low-key, not out on a mission, not a hell-raiser. Just a regular guy living by his principles. Of course, one can say the same for Jesse Helms. To that end, perhaps Helms would appreciate the sincerity of this man.:)

[Renee in NC]

I applaud what he did!

 

I think Jesse Helms would have understood!:lol:

[Andie]

I'm interested in what others think of this story. Do you admire the man for sticking to his principles (whether or not you happen to share those principles)? Do you think he should have just followed the instructive? Anyone out there?:)

 

 

I'm not sure, to tell the truth. Part of me says that whatever one individual thinks of Any Public Servant, he or she did serve this country in a capacity or office that is typically honored with a lowered flag at the time of his death, and as an employee of the state, that person is obliged to do the state's "work". As an individual, there are cases that would literally make me cringe if I had to do the lowering. I'm frankly just not sure.

 

Aaannnnd, I do wonder how applauded the action would be if the deceased wasn't *Jesse Helms*. For example, what if it had been my senator, the Honorable Robert C. Byrd? (Byrd is a well respected Democrat, "Dean of the Senate" and former KKK member, the center of several "N word" controversies, among other things, for those unfamiliar with him.) Would that be a principled action by a citizen, or a conservative nut job (since he's a Democrat) not respecting the Senator? But that's the cynical part of me, probably. ;)

[Kelli in TN]

I'm not sure, to tell the truth. Part of me says that whatever one individual thinks of Any Public Servant, he or she did serve this country in a capacity or office that is typically honored with a lowered flag at the time of his death, and as an employee of the state, that person is obliged to do the state's "work".

;)

 

 

This is how I see it too. This is what we do in the US. We lower flags. This was an inappropriate way for this individual to express his dislike of the deceased. I am not applauding his actions. I might agree with the sentiment behind his actions, but he should have risen above his personal feelings.

[Danestress]

He was just an employee. It wasn't his lab or his flag, and lowering the flag isn't meant to be approval of the deceased voting record, rather a formal show of respect for a public servant.

 

But gosh, I can't stand Jesse Helms. I think he was a nightmare of a Senator, and I wouldn't want to lower the flag either. It seems to me that this was handled the right way - rather than file law suits and make a huge public spectacle, the guy retired. Even his wife didn't want him to, but he toook the stand he took. He's entitled to do that. I don't think he's entitled to keep the flag up if the Gov. has ordered otherwise, but he is entitled to retire, so he did.

[battlemaiden]

This is how I see it too. This is what we do in the US. We lower flags. This was an inappropriate way for this individual to express his dislike of the deceased. I am not applauding his actions. I might agree with the sentiment behind his actions, but he should have risen above his personal feelings.

 

 

"Don't speak ill of the dead" used to be the standard because generally recognized that it is unclassy at best and a cheap shot at worst.

 

I think it is insulting no matter what his feelings about Jesse Helms. So, no I don't support what he did. He would of been the bigger man to rise above his personal miffs and honor the human being.

 

Now if this non-flag-lowerer were to have passed away prior to my reading the story....I never would have posted. ;)

 

Jo

[Just Me]

I am sorry, but I do not admire this man. No, I am not sorry. Agree with Jesse Helms or not, that is not the issue. In lowering the flag, we are honoring the office of Senator, and the contribution and sacrifice of a life lived serving the people of North Carolina. One doesn't get to decide for the majority what the reaction of the majority will be. I happen to personally know a man who also works in the office in this story. He did not agree with the sentiments of this man, and was ashamed of the fact that their building would be the only one not lowering their flag.

 

I have not agreed with every American President, but I do honor the office of the Presidency. When Nixon died, I agreed that flags needed to be lowered. I will feel the same at the deaths of Carter, Bush, Clinton, or Bush 2. Like them or not!

 

I think we as Americans are forgetting what it means to honor patriotism. Yes, Senator Helms was controversial, as is Senator Kennedy, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain. However, he served us and served us well, or the people (the majority) would have put him out of office. I cannot forget this. Political leanings aside, I am an American, and I will honor those who serve.

[*anj*]

I understand that the state routinely honors people in this way. But I think that citizens of this country should always be able to hold to their principles in the way that they see fit. I think that this man is very brave, even though he doesn't agree with that description. He looked at the situation, decided that he wanted no part of it, and then accepted the consequences without complaint. He stood up for his beliefs. We could easily think of other scenarios in which a citizen might be thrust into a similar quandary. When you take a job with the state you don't think "Hmmm...should I take this job working in a lab? What if one day I am asked to lower a flag for a man who I don't think was honorable?" Flag lowering wasn't really part of his job description, but it was an addendum.

 

I think that this is a freedom of speech/freedom of expression issue. He exercised those rights and then took his lumps. I don't see the problem with that.

[sdWTMer]

I think we as Americans are forgetting what it means to honor patriotism. Yes, Senator Helms was controversial, as is Senator Kennedy, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain. However, he served us and served us well, or the people (the majority) would have put him out of office. I cannot forget this. Political leanings aside, I am an American, and I will honor those who serve.

 

:iagree: wholeheartedly with this post! Well said!!

[Stacy in NJ]

rather controlling and narcissistic. He runs a state facility and is a state employee. He managed to turn something that wasn't about him into something about him. I happen to think that Jesse Helms, along with his bosom buddy Robert Bird, was a real sh*t heel, but we honor the office, not the individual. The People of NC saw fit to elect him to office over generations. He should have found a PRIVATE way to express his disdain.

 

To me this is another expression of the growing trend of individuals feeling that the expression of their opinion is more important than fullfilling their obligations. It's petty and tiresome.

[Jugglin'5]

I am sorry, but I do not admire this man. No, I am not sorry. Agree with Jesse Helms or not, that is not the issue. In lowering the flag, we are honoring the office of Senator, and the contribution and sacrifice of a life lived serving the people of North Carolina. One doesn't get to decide for the majority what the reaction of the majority will be. I happen to personally know a man who also works in the office in this story. He did not agree with the sentiments of this man, and was ashamed of the fact that their building would be the only one not lowering their flag.

 

I have not agreed with every American President, but I do honor the office of the Presidency. When Nixon died, I agreed that flags needed to be lowered. I will feel the same at the deaths of Carter, Bush, Clinton, or Bush 2. Like them or not!

 

This is how I feel about it as well. You salute the uniform, whether the person in question is a good officer or not. If it was the flag on his own front porch, well, that's his business, and he can choose to be tacky about it if he wants to.

[*anj*]

But did they go ahead and lower the flag after the guy stepped down from his position?

[Jugglin'5]

rather controlling and narcissistic. He runs a state facility and is a state employee. He managed to turn something that wasn't about him into something about him. I happen to think that Jesse Helms, along with his bosom buddy Robert Bird, was a real sh*t heel, but we honor the office, not the individual. The People of NC saw fit to elect him to office over generations. He should have found a PRIVATE way to express his disdain.

 

To me this is another expression of the growing trend of individuals feeling that the expression of their opinion is more important than fullfilling their obligations. It's petty and tiresome.

 

While not agreeing with your sentiments about Helms, I totally agree with the rest of your statement, and I would feel the same way about, say, Ted Kennedy.:D

[Danestress]

If someone who was a real believer in the pro-life movement wouldn't lower the flag to salute the death of someone who worked for abortion rights, I would understand that. To that person, it's honoring someone complicit in murder. I would understand and sort of admire the convictions as long as the protester understood that the flag WAS coming down and that he would just have to quit his job if he didn't like it. That's essentially what happened here. He was told to lower it or quit, so he quit.

 

Works for me.

[GraceinMD]

it is unclassy at best and a cheap shot at worst.

 

I think it is insulting no matter what his feelings about Jesse Helms. So, no I don't support what he did.

 

I agree. If the man did not want to fly his OWN flag (e.g., at his own home), that's certainly his perogative, but in his capacity as a state employee, I don't see that he gets to choose. I do think it was fine for him to go ahead and retire (based on principle), rather than beginning some crusade against the deceased. I don't imagine that NC hired this gentleman to be in charge of moral standards and judgments of elected officials, just physical weights and measures.

[RebeccaC]

I don't think he was brave at all. There was no risk involved for him. Heroes risk their lives for folks with whom they may or may not agree with. Heroes put their physical safety on the line to save a life. Heroes lay down their lives so that other can live. This guy did nothing that a hero does. Martin Luther king endured physical pain with out taking his pound of flesh. That is heroic. This guy whined about honoring the office of the senate because he didn't like the man who held that office. He dishonored his governor by refusing to do a directive handed down by that governor.

 

I think what he did was dishonorable and the way he did it was even more dishonorable. If he was truly honorable he would have quit with out making a fuss and would not have done an NPR interview. Giving the interview and making a fuss dishonored the office of the senator by dishonoring the man with his stories about how much he disliked the man and what he thought when the man was first elected. I think this was just personal revenge on this guys part masked in look how principal I am, I had a grudge against the guy so I decided to disrespect the office of the Senate. To be honest I think it shows his lack of principals. Patriot this guy is not, self centered he is.

 

I don't like Clinton I think he is worse than Nixon was but I think the flag should be lowered when he dies because not to dishonors the office of the Presidency. When Clinton passes I don't think that the things he did wrong should be brought up. I don't like Kennedy but I think his state should lower the flag when he dies. When he dies I don't think that the things he did wrong should be brought up. It is the same with Helms not lowering the flag dishonors the office and dishonors the request made by a setting governor.

 

My opinion is, when some one dies just keep your politics to your self and don't make the dishonouring of dead and the office the dead held a way to get back at some one you disagreed with. Soap boxing is in poor taste and I think this guy just saw a way to get his 15 minutes on his soap box :glare:

 

I am now getting down off of my soap box :rolleyes: Of course all of this is my 2 cents which may or may not be worth the copper. Rant over :001_smile:

[sdWTMer]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Carol in Cal.]

However, I believe in courtesy and also although I do not respect him as a person or as an official, I do respect his office. And out of common courtesy as well as respect for his office, I would have raised the flag myself in that position.

 

I think that not to do so was rude.

 

If, however, he was asked to pledge alligiance to Jesse's principles, or to deliver a eulogy, refusing would have been appropriate and principled.

[Erica in PA]

No, I don't think his actions were honorable. It's basic courtesy to lower the flag upon the death of a public servant, whether or not you agree with his politics-- which is clearly what this man's objections were to.

 

I couldn't have disagreed more with Bill Clinton as president, and had to swallow hard feelings against him many times while he was in office-- but if the situation had called for it, I would absolutely have lowered the flag for him regardless. I also disagree with pretty much everything Nancy Pelosi stands for... I still wouldn't show such disrespect as to not lower the flag if she were to pass. It wouldn't even be a question.

 

What makes it even worse is that he had the nerve to hand that order down as a directive to his employees, forbidding *them* to do their job and lower the flag, completely flouting the instructions of his bosses. He was forcing his employees to carry out his own personal political preferences. That sounds like extreme arrogance to me.

 

I say good job to those over him, for enforcing their rule, allowing this man to retire immediately, and ensuring that his mischief did not allow the flag from being lowered as it should have been. He ended up giving up his career just to show everyone that he disagreed with a dead man's politics.

 

Erica

[bkpan]

I am sorry, but I do not admire this man. No, I am not sorry. Agree with Jesse Helms or not, that is not the issue. In lowering the flag, we are honoring the office of Senator, and the contribution and sacrifice of a life lived serving the people of North Carolina. One doesn't get to decide for the majority what the reaction of the majority will be. I happen to personally know a man who also works in the office in this story. He did not agree with the sentiments of this man, and was ashamed of the fact that their building would be the only one not lowering their flag.

 

I have not agreed with every American President, but I do honor the office of the Presidency. When Nixon died, I agreed that flags needed to be lowered. I will feel the same at the deaths of Carter, Bush, Clinton, or Bush 2. Like them or not!

 

I think we as Americans are forgetting what it means to honor patriotism. Yes, Senator Helms was controversial, as is Senator Kennedy, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain. However, he served us and served us well, or the people (the majority) would have put him out of office. I cannot forget this. Political leanings aside, I am an American, and I will honor those who serve.

 

I have to agree.:iagree:

 

It is simply respect for the dead, the office of a Senator. IMO, that is not the time to make a political statement, no matter how strongly held the views are. There are plenty of opportunities for freedom of expression among the living.

 

Kim

[Colleen]

Part of me says that whatever one individual thinks of Any Public Servant, he or she did serve this country in a capacity or office that is typically honored with a lowered flag at the time of his death, and as an employee of the state, that person is obliged to do the state's "work".

 

Yes, I see that, too.

 

Aaannnnd, I do wonder how applauded the action would be if the deceased wasn't *Jesse Helms*. For example, what if it had been my senator, the Honorable Robert C. Byrd? (Byrd is a well respected Democrat, "Dean of the Senate" and former KKK member, the center of several "N word" controversies, among other things, for those unfamiliar with him.) Would that be a principled action by a citizen, or a conservative nut job (since he's a Democrat) not respecting the Senator? But that's the cynical part of me, probably. ;)

 

I don't know that anyone is applauding the action, per se. I am applauding someone sticking to their principles. Maybe it's semantics. The NPR interview took an objective standpoint, imo.

[Colleen]

"Don't speak ill of the dead" used to be the standard because generally recognized that it is unclassy at best and a cheap shot at worst.

 

History involves assessing people's actions. It is unreasonable to assume that those who have been in the public arena ~ whether it be Nero, Lincoln, or Jesse Helms, will either have their "positives" alone highlighted, or be presented in a neutral light.

[HRAAB]

I'm no fan of Jesse Helms, but that is beside the point. As a government employee, in a government building, he should have lowered the flag. It wasn't his private residence. I don't think anyone would take his lowering of the flag at a government building as a sign of his support for Jesse Helms. Just doing what we do when public servant dies.

 

Maybe he was 'really' ready to retire and thought this would be the way to do it - by making a statement? Big assumption on my part there.

 

Janet

[*anj*]

...and I believe passionately that we are responsible to our conscience before the law, before our employer, before our parents/spouse/children/friends, before custom or courtesy *and* that as individuals and as a nation we must cherish that truth. Orders, policies, customs, traditions, manners... none of that justifies doing something one believes to be *wrong*.

 

 

A current controversy on the other end of the political spectrum is whether a doctor is required to perform and abortion when s/he believes it to be wrong. Where do we draw the line? Where does societal judgment trump individual conviction? ...at what point does/should an individual have to resign rather than be forced to go against his/her conscience?

 

 

This was precisely the point that I attempted to make. Well said, Eliana!

[Colleen]

I don't think he was brave at all. There was no risk involved for him...This guy did nothing that a hero does.

 

I agree with you, and neither the man himself nor the interview implied he was brave or heroic. (Edit to add: I just realized I did put the word "hero" in my subject line. Forgot about that, LOL! No, I don't consider him a true hero. I wasn't using the word in its truest sense. If I were I wouldn't have included the "o-apostrophe" there. "Hero o' the day" is just small talk, in other words. : ) )

 

This guy whined about honoring the office of the senate because he didn't like the man who held that office.

 

In what way did he "whine"?

 

He dishonored his governor by refusing to do a directive handed down by that governor.

 

Yes, I can see that point.

 

I think what he did was dishonorable and the way he did it was even more dishonorable. If he was truly honorable he would have quit with out making a fuss and would not have done an NPR interview.

 

I don't agree that he made a fuss. On the contrary, I thought he was quite mild-mannered about the whole affair. Had he wanted to make a fuss, he could have been distinctly "in your face", which he was not.

 

My opinion is, when some one dies just keep your politics to your self and don't make the dishonouring of dead and the office the dead held a way to get back at some one you disagreed with.

 

I am at heart in agreement with that sentiment. In this one particular case, I am so appalled at some of the actions set forth by this man, it would honestly go against my principle to "honor" him in this regard. I think that was the bottom line for the employee here. But I do understand and respect your view, Rebecca; thank you for posting.

[Colleen]

As a government employee, in a government building, he should have lowered the flag. It wasn't his private residence.

 

Is there ever a time when our convictions trump our job directive? Just musing here.

 

I don't think anyone would take his lowering of the flag at a government building as a sign of his support for Jesse Helms. Just doing what we do when public servant dies.

 

Yeah, that was my first thought. Lowering a flag when a soldier dies in Iraq, for example, does not necessarily imply support for the war in Iraq. It is a sign of respect, a sign of honor. And that apparently was the key for this man: His convictions are such that he chose not to "honor" the late Senator in any sense.

 

Maybe he was 'really' ready to retire and thought this would be the way to do it - by making a statement?

 

Well, certainly, as he said in the interview, he was in a position to retire anyway. I imagine he would have had to think about this much longer, much harder were he twenty years younger.

 

Janet

[*anj*]

Well, I used the word "brave" to describe this man's actions. I chose that word because he knew that there would be personal and professional repercussions to that choice, yet he still upheld his principles.

 

He has undoubtedly received hate mail, and even admitted that there had been a thinly veiled death threat. I think that a person's willingness to suffer personal consequences in order to uphold a moral ideal is a type of bravery.

 

Is it the same as rushing into a burning building? No.

Is it the same as taking a bullet to spare another person? No.

But it is a little bit like being willing to let police spray you with fire hoses.

And it's a little bit like refusing to go sit in the back of the bus.

And it's a little bit like marching through the streets of Selma linked arm in arm.

 

I didn't read anything about this man attending Helms' funeral wearing a placard. I didn't read anything about him writing up a petition encouraging other state employees to revolt against the lowering of the flag.

He just said "I don't want to be a party to that, thanks anyway."

 

I don't think that's wrong.

[Colleen]

In lowering the flag, we are honoring the office of Senator, and the contribution and sacrifice of a life lived serving the people of North Carolina.

 

Here's the sticky-wicket for me, though. At what point do we tease apart honoring an office, honoring a flag ~ honoring an object and an idea, in other words ~ from honoring a person? For the (former) employee, his conviction is that Helms himself dishonored the office, that's the basis for his non-compliance.

 

I'm thinking...Let's say a man is elected to the Senate and promptly shoots and kills the President, whereupon the Senator himself is shot and killed. Do we "honor" that Senator's office by lowering the flag? If he's is brand new to office, is the fact that he was elected and holds the title basis enough for that honor?

[Colleen]

Well said, anj. I like what you said at the end about essentially saying, "That's not something I want to be a party to." I'm a bit flummoxed by allegations that he was grand-standing.

 

Well, I used the word "brave" to describe this man's actions. I chose that word because he knew that there would be personal and professional repercussions to that choice, yet he still upheld his principles.

 

He has undoubtedly received hate mail, and even admitted that there had been a thinly veiled death threat. I think that a person's willingness to suffer personal consequences in order to uphold a moral ideal is a type of bravery.

 

Is it the same as rushing into a burning building? No.

Is it the same as taking a bullet to spare another person? No.

But it is a little bit like being willing to let police spray you with fire hoses.

And it's a little bit like refusing to go sit in the back of the bus.

And it's a little bit like marching through the streets of Selma linked arm in arm.

 

I didn't read anything about this man attending Helms' funeral wearing a placard. I didn't read anything about him writing up a petition encouraging other state employees to revolt against the lowering of the flag.

He just said "I don't want to be a party to that, thanks anyway."

 

I don't think that's wrong.

[TravelingChris]

I don't agree that what this supervisor did was brave, noble or anything like it if he forbid others to do the task of lowering the flag like the Governor had ordered. This was not an unlawful order. He just didn't like it. I don't see the relevance of comparing Sen. Helms with a fictional Senator who died while committing a criminal act. We will all be lowering our flags when President Clinton dies and he pleaded guilty to a felony he committed in office (I know he pleaded no lo contendre buit that is the same basic thing). Yet we will lower the flag for him and the flag for Senator Kennedy when he dies who by his drinking and driving caused the death of Mary Jo Kopeche. I admired Jesse Helms for some of his views and strongly disliked some of them. He was a very strong anti-communist and I admired that. He had racist views in his earlier life that I certainly don't hold. But I don't like Senatro Byrd's earlier KKK membership any better and don't like his more current views neither. Nonetheless, if I was an employee in Massachusetts or West Virginia or anywhere else and was was lawfully ordered to lower the flag for any of these men on their passing or any of the myriads of others I don't particularly support, I would do it.

[Colleen]

The issue, to me, is that the man felt a personal conviction, and believed that it would be wrong for him to do as his job was requiring.

 

Yes, exactly. As I read through these responses, what I'm wondering is, when and how do others put their convictions above the unquestioned, routine actions required of them?

 

So, yes, I admire this man for following the dictates of his conscience - whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant.

 

This is my feeling as well (needless to say).

 

A current controversy on the other end of the political spectrum is whether a doctor is required to perform and abortion when s/he believes it to be wrong. Where do we draw the line? Where does societal judgment trump individual conviction?

 

Yes, this is what I'm getting at in some of my posts above.

[Just Me]

 

 

I'm thinking...Let's say a man is elected to the Senate and promptly shoots and kills the President, whereupon the Senator himself is shot and killed. Do we "honor" that Senator's office by lowering the flag? If he's is brand new to office, is the fact that he was elected and holds the title basis enough for that honor?

 

In your hypothetical, though, your "Senator" hasn't lived a life of service to his constituents. This is what Jesse Helms did. In my original post, that was the point I was making. I am a North Carolina girl from birth. Jesse Helms is as much a part of me as tarheels, wolfpacks, blue devils (Go Duke!), pork bar-b-que, and pine trees. I know that a lot of folks didn't agree with Jesse's positions, nor do I believe he was always right. But I believe he tried, admitted when he was wrong on several occasions, and gave all he had to fulfill the duties of his office. So, there is no "hypothetical" here. In the scenario that you posted, sure, that guy shouldn't be honored. But I think we could all come up with hypothetical reasons why we shouldn't lower the flag. That doesn't make it right in this instance.

[Colleen]

In your hypothetical, though, your "Senator" hasn't lived a life of service to his constituents. This is what Jesse Helms did. .

 

Right! That's my point. Some here have said (I didn't mean to direct my hypothetical solely at you, btw) that we're honoring the office, not the man, by lowering the flag. I'm asking, is simply gaining office enough to merit that honor? If we say, "I'm going to honor those who serve", does it matter what we honor in the process? I think these are interesting questions...

[RebeccaC]

 

Here's the sticky-wicket for me, though. At what point do we tease apart honoring an office, honoring a flag ~ honoring an object and an idea, in other words ~ from honoring a person? For the (former) employee, his conviction is that Helms himself dishonored the office, that's the basis for his non-compliance.

 

I'm thinking...Let's say a man is elected to the Senate and promptly shoots and kills the President, whereupon the Senator himself is shot and killed. Do we "honor" that Senator's office by lowering the flag? If he's is brand new to office, is the fact that he was elected and holds the title basis enough for that honor?

 

 

Colleen,

 

Any one who commits a crime like you just posted would have been removed from office. There is no comparison at all. Jesse Helms had never been convicted of a crime or tried for a crime or even impeached. That is a straw man argument. Clinton lied under oath doesn't matter if it was about a private matter done in a semi public place. He still deserves a state funeral with out mention of Monica.

 

This man was a public servant and his opinion should not have been even a small part of the discussion. What he feels on his free time is his business but pushing his opinion on his staff and on the state is a whole nother ball of wax. I would have respect this mans actions if he had called his boss and said, "Hey I just got the directive and it is against my conscience to lower the flag so I must resign." That would have been a little bit brave but that is not what he did. He told those employees below him that they were not going to do it. That is what I mean by making a fuss. The people in his office had to choose his view and no other. He made some sort of noise or it would not have gotten in the papers.

 

I understand the want to make this like the civil rights movement but I had relatives who marched with King and they knew when they left that morning that what they were doing was risky and might involve pain. This guy did not know it was risky and impressed his view on subordinates. He found out later after he acted that there would be consequences. He did not weigh those consequences before hand. He informed his wife later which means he impressed his views on her also after the fact.

[Just Me]

 

Right! That's my point. Some here have said (I didn't mean to direct my hypothetical solely at you, btw) that we're honoring the office, not the man, by lowering the flag. I'm asking, is simply gaining office enough to merit that honor? If we say, "I'm going to honor those who serve", does it matter what we honor in the process? I think these are interesting questions...

 

I think that in honoring the office, we are honoring the work that that person did while in office, or while trying to get there. So, say a Senator died a day after taking office, yes the flags should be lowered.

 

I have to say, thanks for posting your opinions on this, though. A friend and I were talking about this story on Wednesday night, and it was interesting to see the topic here and hear how others view this. I know that Senator Helms was not well liked, but he was not a bad man, so this story sort of hit me hard, ya' know? His name is one of those that I just grew up hearing and knowing.

 

Did you all know that he and his wife adopted a young boy with cerebral palsy after reading about him in the newspaper? The boy said that the only thing he wanted for Christmas was a family. So, Senator and Mrs. Helms gave him what he wanted. This was a side that most folks never saw or heard about.

[RebeccaC]

Well, I used the word "brave" to describe this man's actions. I chose that word because he knew that there would be personal and professional repercussions to that choice, yet he still upheld his principles.

 

He has undoubtedly received hate mail, and even admitted that there had been a thinly veiled death threat. I think that a person's willingness to suffer personal consequences in order to uphold a moral ideal is a type of bravery.

 

Is it the same as rushing into a burning building? No.

Is it the same as taking a bullet to spare another person? No.

But it is a little bit like being willing to let police spray you with fire hoses.

And it's a little bit like refusing to go sit in the back of the bus.

And it's a little bit like marching through the streets of Selma linked arm in arm.

 

I didn't read anything about this man attending Helms' funeral wearing a placard. I didn't read anything about him writing up a petition encouraging other state employees to revolt against the lowering of the flag.

He just said "I don't want to be a party to that, thanks anyway."

 

I don't think that's wrong.

 

 

He did not weigh the consequences before he acted. This is not like any of the activities you posted. Folks who see the police with hoses and march anyway are willing to pay a price. This is not moving to the back of the bus and knowing you might be arrested for doing so. This is not marching through Selma knowing that you might feel the back of a police night stick at any moment. Sorry there is no comparison. This guy knew that he would not be arrested for what he did, he was not doing it in the presence of riot police, he did what he did because he thought he could with little ill effect.

 

If he had called his boss and said sorry I can't I resign then I would have respected him but that is not what he did. He made his office comply with his views wether they agreed or not. His actions will not make it easier for anyone or change any laws or get some one out of office..... Jesse Helms was no longer a problem he was dead.

[LMA]

I read the news story and the first thing that came to my mind is: "It's all about me." Now I was not particularly fond of Helms. However, political talk aside, the man was just thinking about himself and not about doing his job. It was disrespectful to the Senator's office and his family.

[RebeccaC]

I think that the issue is not whether any of us agree with or support this man's convictions - and the issue is certainly not Jesse Helms himself.

 

The issue, to me, is that the man felt a personal conviction, and believed that it would be wrong for him to do as his job was requiring.

 

...and I believe passionately that we are responsible to our conscience before the law, before our employer, before our parents/spouse/children/friends, before custom or courtesy *and* that as individuals and as a nation we must cherish that truth. Orders, policies, customs, traditions, manners... none of that justifies doing something one believes to be *wrong*.

 

Of course there are consequences to holding to one's convictions - sometimes small ones other times enormously, unbearably large ones, but I cannot see another option.

 

So, yes, I admire this man for following the dictates of his conscience - whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant.

 

A current controversy on the other end of the political spectrum is whether a doctor is required to perform and abortion when s/he believes it to be wrong. Where do we draw the line? Where does societal judgment trump individual conviction? ...at what point does/should an individual have to resign rather than be forced to go against his/her conscience?

 

Here is an interesting Op-Ed piece: Faith Shouldn't outweigh Hippocratic Oath...

 

The problem with this man is that he made his office follow his convictions. That is tyrannical. I am sorry but not lowering a flag cannot even mildly be compared with forcing someone to commit what they feel is murder. This has nothing to do with societal judgements it has to do with a public servant impressing his private opinion on his office and on his state. the vast majority od Doctors are not public servants they are self employed. A good majority of doctors who do not preform abortions do so out of religious convictions. Lowering the flag or not has nothing to do with any religious or sacred tenet or even our constitution. Last time I checked our constitutional right to freedom of religion trumped the so called right to an abortion. A right that the chief justice who helped imposed the right through judicial fiat wrote would fall apart consitutionally if ever the fetus were viewed as a person.

 

He did not call up his boss and say I can not do this. No he told his subordinates that they must not do it and his boss had to call him. I think that was cowardly. I would have respected him calling and resigning but his boss had to tell him which way the wind blew. Then he chose early retirement and broke the news to his wife.

 

My FIL Moshe marched with King when he marched he knew that he might get hurt or even killed but he march more than once anyway. He did not make others march with him. This guy made his office march with him. He impressed his conscience on others. What he did was tyrannical and cowardly and disrespectful and.....

[HRAAB]

 

The issue, to me, is that the man felt a personal conviction, and believed that it would be wrong for him to do as his job was requiring.

 

...and I believe passionately that we are responsible to our conscience before the law, before our employer, before our parents/spouse/children/friends, before custom or courtesy *and* that as individuals and as a nation we must cherish that truth. Orders, policies, customs, traditions, manners... none of that justifies doing something one believes to be *wrong*.

 

Of course there are consequences to holding to one's convictions - sometimes small ones other times enormously, unbearably large ones, but I cannot see another option.

 

So, yes, I admire this man for following the dictates of his conscience - whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant.

 

A current controversy on the other end of the political spectrum is whether a doctor is required to perform and abortion when s/he believes it to be wrong. Where do we draw the line? Where does societal judgment trump individual conviction? ...at what point does/should an individual have to resign rather than be forced to go against his/her conscience?

 

Here is an interesting Op-Ed piece: Faith Shouldn't outweigh Hippocratic Oath...

 

 

Oh drat! I had my mind all made up, and now I re-thinking my position. You've made a point here I need to consider.

 

However, lowering a flag in honor of man you don't respect and performing abortion are very different. You probably didn't mean that as an analogy but just showing another example of standing on one's convictions. I do see you point, though.

 

Janet

[GraceinMD]

I am applauding someone sticking to their principles.

 

I don't disagree with that.

 

I was curious about exactly what lowering the flag is about - IS it a custom, or something more? The US Code includes a provision that the flag shall be flown at half-staff … on the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress. The Code doesn’t say, “…if you agree with this,†or “…if no one in the government office objects.†In fact, since it is part of the US Code, it is (as I understand it – any lawyers or those more knowledgeable than I want to speak up?) a binding law.

 

Again, I have no issue with Mr. Eason resigning because he did not want to honor Mr. Helms. My issue is with the fact that he didn’t just resign. He first issued a directive to his employees to NOT observe the flag custom. He said he was going to give them an option (no flag at all, or flag at full staff), and said, “…we weren’t making any formal statement….†by allowing his subordinates to choose between these options. Well, of COURSE he was making a statement. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise, no matter how mild-mannered he sounds – and he sounds like a really nice man! He absolutely did the right thing by resigning, but he overstepped his bounds by asking his subordinates to follow him - let them resign on their own if they want! :)

 

(...and more on employees / subordinates / one's conscience below Eliana's post!)

[HRAAB]

The problem with this man is that he made his office follow his convictions. That is tyrannical.

 

 

I just posted, and then read this. Another valid point I didn't consider. It's too late in the day for this, and I'm ready for a wine cooler. :001_smile:

 

Janet

[Elaine]

I think that he was wrong, and certainly not a hero, quite the contrary. A hero, IMO, is able to put aside thier own personal feelings and still do what is considered the "right thing." In this case it was lowering the flag to half-mast. He put his own personal politics above what is considered respectful, that is not heroic.

[Carol in Cal.]

...something like this a principled stand.

 

I alluded to this somewhat in my earlier post but would like to elaborate further.

 

I think that it is principled to resist evil. I also think that it is wrong to follow orders that you believe to be morally wrong, and that it is wrong to lie.

 

So, for instance, if the guy was told to write a praiseful eulogy about Helms to be published under his own byline, that would have made him lie and so he should refuse on principle. Or, if he was told to vote for Helms' nomination to some position where he could do a great deal of harm, that would be wrong to do. Or if he was supposed to carry out a racist or sexist policy, that would be wrong, and it would be a principled stand not to do so.

 

But again, in this particular case, the guy was not told to make a statement of his own beliefs. He was not told to honor Helms' positions on things. Instead he was told to honor the passing of a Senator of the United States. Out of respect for the office, that was the right thing to do.

[Colleen]

...But again, in this particular case, the guy was not told to make a statement of his own beliefs. He was not told to honor Helms' positions on things. Instead he was told to honor the passing of a Senator of the United States. Out of respect for the office, that was the right thing to do.

 

I appreciate all these thoughtful replies! I'm totally seeing the point that he was wrong to impose his convictions on his subordinates. He mentioned several times in the interview about feeling it was "his" lab and so on. While I appreciate his sense of responsibility for the lab and its employees, I can't go along with him here. As Grace MD pointed out, he could have simply resigned rather than first issue the directive to his staff to fly the flag at full-staff or not fly it at all. That was not an appropriate request (demand) to make of his staff. I certainly wouldn't want my superior diverting authority and imposing his or her beliefs on me. So to that end, I'm in agreement with the majority here.

 

Having said that, I think this provides interesting fodder for the points expressed so well by Eliana. I have trouble with the concept of following a directive ~ even if one disagrees with that directive ~ based on the idea that it serves to honor an office. If I believe the office itself has been dishonored, it doesn't hold that I'd positively acknowledge the office-holder.

 

Any-hoo. I'm with Janet (Ishki), in need now of a wine cooler ~ or a glass of wine, in my case.:)

[GraceinMD]

I may have multiquoted myself into a mess here :001_huh:, but here goes!

Is there ever a time when our convictions trump our job directive? Just musing here.

 

Great question. I'd say, "Absolutely."

 

I think that the issue is not whether any of us agree with or support this man's convictions - and the issue is certainly not Jesse Helms himself. The issue, to me, is that the man felt a personal conviction, and believed that it would be wrong for him to do as his job was requiring.

 

...and I believe passionately that we are responsible to our conscience *and* that as individuals and as a nation we must cherish that truth. Orders, policies, customs, traditions, manners... none of that justifies doing something one believes to be *wrong*.

 

Of course there are consequences to holding to one's convictions

 

A current controversy on the other end of the political spectrum is whether a doctor is required to perform and abortion when s/he believes it to be wrong. Where do we draw the line? Where does societal judgment trump individual conviction? ...at what point does/should an individual have to resign rather than be forced to go against his/her conscience?

 

 

Thank you for the link, Eliana – interesting op-ed. The difference is that Mr. Eason (as many have pointed out) planned to require his subordinates to follow him in HIS conscience. The analogy with the abortion situation would be requiring a doctor to perform an abortion, or for a doctor who does perform the abortion to require his or her nurse to assist.

 

Should all doctors should be *required* to offer abortions? (or referrals for abortions, in the case of doctors who don’t practice in a specialty that would involve care of pregnant women?) Should doctors in Oregon be *required* to offer physician-assisted suicide? I suspect that most would scoff at the idea – after all, this is America, where, as

citizens of this country should always be able to hold to their principles in the way that they see fit.

 

 

However, in Europe, there has been a shortage of docs (especially in heavily Catholic countries) willing to perform abortions - thus this directive: In such cases, the EU experts say, doctors should be forced to abort: The experts declare that the right to religious conscientious objection “should be regulated in order to ensure that, in circumstances where abortion is legal, no woman shall be deprived from having effective access to the medical service of abortion. [T]his implies that the State concerned must ensure, first, that an effective remedy should be open to challenge any refusal to provide abortion; second, that an obligation will be imposed on the health care practitioner exercising his or her right to religious conscientious objection to refer the woman seeking abortion to another qualified health care practitioner who will agree to perform the abortion; third, that another qualified health care practitioner will be indeed available, including in rural areas or in areas which are geographically remote from the centre.â€

 

Here’s another: A doctor may refuse to perform euthanasia or to approve of the act, but the Royal Dutch Medical Association has stipulated that he or she is then obliged-albeit ethically, not legally-to put the patient in contact with another physician.

 

Do we think that’s so very far away in the U.S.? I don’t. (And that's why you don't FORCE Mr. Eason to fly the flag, and DO allow him to resign.)

 

when and how do others put their convictions above the unquestioned, routine actions required of them?

 

 

Well, here's one of my stories (do ya'll get sick of them?! I'm so anecdotal!):

When I was a 3rd yr resident, I had a lovely patient who was thrilled to be pregnant. When we did an ultrasound sometime in the middle of her pregnancy, it showed that her baby was anencephalic, and thus had no possibility of surviving any appreciable length of time. Now, referral for a termination might seem obvious, but I would not do it. (I don’t mean I’m better, or have better judgment, but rather that many doctors would feel that this was a “justifiable†termination of a pregnancy.) I explained what the ultrasound showed, and tried to console the patient and her husband, and explained why I would not refer her to a physician who performed abortions. I suppose because we had an actual relationship, they were as ok with that as one could expect.

My program director asked me to have lunch with him in the hospital cafeteria that day. In the middle of the cafeteria, he actually came up out of his chair yelling at me that if I EVER refused to refer for an abortion, he would fire me. I explained as calmly as I could that I could no more refer her for an abortion than send a homicidal patient to the pawnshop where I knew they sold guns, and that I would not do so, and that if he needed to fire me, he should do so. [Just to complete the story: the patient went on to deliver an anencephalic baby who only lived a few hours. When she came to me for her postnatal checkup, she and her husband were so thankful that they had had the opportunity to hold their son. I also didn’t get fired :001_smile:.)

 

The op-ed Eliana linked says, “Making it legal to deny recognized treatments is a very bad idea. Those who argue that Americans have a basic right to follow their conscience above all else seem to ignore that one has the right to try to control one's own destiny even in health matters, and not to have to worry about a healer's faith.â€

 

Well, you know what? If your right abuts mine (so to speak), then I absolutely will “ignore … (your) right to try to control (your) own destiny … in health matters.†To be specific, if I lived in Oregon, and Oregon said what the Dutch or the EU folks have said, I’d move. If it became a requirement (for licensure, for example) that I have to agree to perform PAS, I would quit my profession. So, again, I don’t fault Mr. Eason (the NC flag man), except for asking subordinates to kowtow to his conscience.

 

I have always maintained that a nurse should NEVER EVER be required to follow a doctor’s orders if he or she had an ethical objection to those orders – and that’s where the flag story is different, I think. If Mr. Eason didn’t like the idea of flying the flag at half-staff for an elected official’s memory, then he shouldn’t have been working for the government.

 

Well, ya'll are probably all off drinking wine,

so I'll stop!

:leaving:

[*anj*]

Colleen said:

I appreciate all these thoughtful replies! I'm totally seeing the point that he was wrong to impose his convictions on his subordinates. He mentioned several times in the interview about feeling it was "his" lab and so on. While I appreciate his sense of responsibility for the lab and its employees, I can't go along with him here. As Grace MD pointed out, he could have simply resigned rather than first issue the directive to his staff to fly the flag at full-staff or not fly it at all. That was not an appropriate request (demand) to make of his staff. I certainly wouldn't want my superior diverting authority and imposing his or her beliefs on me. So to that end, I'm in agreement with the majority here.

 

Okay, I can see this part of it. I hadn't really taken the part about his subordinates into account. I wouldn't want my superior to impose her/his beliefs on me either. But I maintain that the this man was entitled to his opinion and within his rights as a citizen to refuse to act in a way that he believed to be immoral. He could've made his point while taking action differently, that's true.

 

Call me a rebel, but I don't think that agreeing to work for any organization automatically means that a person loses the right to their own principles.

 

I'm getting uncomfortable with this thread, so I think I'm going to leave you fine people to finish hashing it out.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

 

Having said that, I think this provides interesting fodder for the points expressed so well by Eliana. I have trouble with the concept of following a directive ~ even if one disagrees with that directive ~ based on the idea that it serves to honor an office. If I believe the office itself has been dishonored, it doesn't hold that I'd positively acknowledge the office-holder.

COLOR]

 

I would feel obligated to toe the line out of respect for the position if it was over something I disagreed with, but not if it made me do something that I felt was morally wrong.

 

A moral issue would be--me having to say that I respect this guy when I don't. Or me having to follow out a racist order.

 

A disagreement would be--me having to type up a memo that does not express my beliefs.

 

A moral issue would be--me having to help this guy write a bill to impose segregation.

 

If someone said to lower the flag out of respect for this man's views, I would not do. I COULD not do it. I would be lying if I did. That would be wrong.

 

If someone said to lower it out of respect for the office that he held, I would do it. I would not be thrilled, quite the contrary, but I would consider it an obligation. And, paradoxically enough, I would probably do it myself. I would not want to delegate an onerous job to someone else of my views, and if they had my views, it would be onerous to them indeed. But even worse, I would not want to delegate it to someone who agreed with the man. It would just stick in my craw too much, like Haman having to praise Mordecai.

[bkpan]

I may have multiquoted myself into a mess here :001_huh:, but here goes!

Great question. I'd say, "Absolutely."

 

 

 

Thank you for the link, Eliana – interesting op-ed. The difference is that Mr. Eason (as many have pointed out) planned to require his subordinates to follow him in HIS conscience. The analogy with the abortion situation would be requiring a doctor to perform an abortion, or for a doctor who does perform the abortion to require his or her nurse to assist.

 

Should all doctors should be *required* to offer abortions? (or referrals for abortions, in the case of doctors who don’t practice in a specialty that would involve care of pregnant women?) Should doctors in Oregon be *required* to offer physician-assisted suicide? I suspect that most would scoff at the idea – after all, this is America, where, as

 

 

However, in Europe, there has been a shortage of docs (especially in heavily Catholic countries) willing to perform abortions - thus this directive: In such cases, the EU experts say, doctors should be forced to abort: The experts declare that the right to religious conscientious objection “should be regulated in order to ensure that, in circumstances where abortion is legal, no woman shall be deprived from having effective access to the medical service of abortion. [T]his implies that the State concerned must ensure, first, that an effective remedy should be open to challenge any refusal to provide abortion; second, that an obligation will be imposed on the health care practitioner exercising his or her right to religious conscientious objection to refer the woman seeking abortion to another qualified health care practitioner who will agree to perform the abortion; third, that another qualified health care practitioner will be indeed available, including in rural areas or in areas which are geographically remote from the centre.â€

 

Here’s another: A doctor may refuse to perform euthanasia or to approve of the act, but the Royal Dutch Medical Association has stipulated that he or she is then obliged-albeit ethically, not legally-to put the patient in contact with another physician.

 

Do we think that’s so very far away in the U.S.? I don’t. (And that's why you don't FORCE Mr. Eason to fly the flag, and DO allow him to resign.)

 

 

 

Well, here's one of my stories (do ya'll get sick of them?! I'm so anecdotal!):

When I was a 3rd yr resident, I had a lovely patient who was thrilled to be pregnant. When we did an ultrasound sometime in the middle of her pregnancy, it showed that her baby was anencephalic, and thus had no possibility of surviving any appreciable length of time. Now, referral for a termination might seem obvious, but I would not do it. (I don’t mean I’m better, or have better judgment, but rather that many doctors would feel that this was a “justifiable†termination of a pregnancy.) I explained what the ultrasound showed, and tried to console the patient and her husband, and explained why I would not refer her to a physician who performed abortions. I suppose because we had an actual relationship, they were as ok with that as one could expect.

My program director asked me to have lunch with him in the hospital cafeteria that day. In the middle of the cafeteria, he actually came up out of his chair yelling at me that if I EVER refused to refer for an abortion, he would fire me. I explained as calmly as I could that I could no more refer her for an abortion than send a homicidal patient to the pawnshop where I knew they sold guns, and that I would not do so, and that if he needed to fire me, he should do so. [Just to complete the story: the patient went on to deliver an anencephalic baby who only lived a few hours. When she came to me for her postnatal checkup, she and her husband were so thankful that they had had the opportunity to hold their son. I also didn’t get fired :001_smile:.)

 

The op-ed Eliana linked says, “Making it legal to deny recognized treatments is a very bad idea. Those who argue that Americans have a basic right to follow their conscience above all else seem to ignore that one has the right to try to control one's own destiny even in health matters, and not to have to worry about a healer's faith.â€

 

Well, you know what? If your right abuts mine (so to speak), then I absolutely will “ignore … (your) right to try to control (your) own destiny … in health matters.†To be specific, if I lived in Oregon, and Oregon said what the Dutch or the EU folks have said, I’d move. If it became a requirement (for licensure, for example) that I have to agree to perform PAS, I would quit my profession. So, again, I don’t fault Mr. Eason (the NC flag man), except for asking subordinates to kowtow to his conscience.

 

I have always maintained that a nurse should NEVER EVER be required to follow a doctor’s orders if he or she had an ethical objection to those orders – and that’s where the flag story is different, I think. If Mr. Eason didn’t like the idea of flying the flag at half-staff for an elected official’s memory, then he shouldn’t have been working for the government.

 

Well, ya'll are probably all off drinking wine,

so I'll stop!

:leaving:

 

That was truly inspiring, Grace, and your commitment to life is beautiful. I hope that there are many more doctors out there with that level of principle. I tried to rep you but it wouldn't let me??:confused:

 

Anyway, your patients are blessed!

 

Kim

[*anj*]

 

Well, you know what? If your right abuts mine (so to speak), then I absolutely will “ignore … (your) right to try to control (your) own destiny … in health matters.†To be specific, if I lived in Oregon, and Oregon said what the Dutch or the EU folks have said, I’d move. If it became a requirement (for licensure, for example) that I have to agree to perform PAS, I would quit my profession. So, again, I don’t fault Mr. Eason (the NC flag man), except for asking subordinates to kowtow to his conscience.

 

 

I was stepping out, but I wanted to come back just to thank you for this great post, Grace. You made many good points, not just the one that I highlighted above. I'm all out of rep for today, but I wanted to publicly thank you for your perspective. :001_smile: